Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=false), the description discloses runtime (~5 minutes), the billing consequence and the failure exception ('not charged if the run needs more input or fails'), and that it returns a job_id immediately. These are exactly the operational facts an agent needs before spending a paid run.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Dense and front-loaded – purpose and example first, then cost, then async/polling, then flags. Nearly every sentence earns its place, though the force-flag details are packed into one long clause that could be broken out.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For an asynchronous, credit-consuming job tool the description covers the async handoff (job_id + poll cadence), cost and refund behavior, and retry flags; the output schema covers return values and annotations cover the safety profile. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden: it defines the query format with example, and explains both booleans in terms of the situation that triggers them. All three parameters gain meaning not present in the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Start a Promoter Brief') and defines the query shape with a concrete example naming artist, market, and optional venue/date/capacity. An agent can distinguish it from get_brief, get_brief_job, and list_briefs without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says to poll get_brief_job every 45 seconds, that a run consumes one brief from the monthly allowance, and that force_low_confidence is for previously thin data while force_refresh bypasses the 24-hour cache. These are concrete when-to-use conditions tied to sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.